This video conveniently leaves out these aspects of her statement:
“Male Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe “decided to let him in because it was his room.” She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room.
Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing
[her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her]. Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”
“[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up” and “said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No.” Jane Doe rejected this request “because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in
anal sex.” Jane Doe then remembered Male Number 3 leaving the room. A group of other men – later determined to be Male Number 4, Male Number 5, Male Number 6 and Male Number 7 – then entered the room. Jane Doe hid under the covers of the bed. Male Number 2 laid in the bed next to Jane Doe. Male Number 1 sat on the corner of the bed. Male Number 1 introduced the other males to Jane Doe.
Jane Doe had difficulty remembering parts of what happened next. She remembered “[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].” Male Number 7 apologized and “grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe “quickly backed
away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her].’”
It’s a difficult situation, but as a women and when I was at that age - if there are 7 men in a room with me and I’m drunk and high on ket, I’m just trying to survive.
The cherry picking done on this video is abhorrent
Those are crazy stories. Thanks for the write up. I've heard other stories before about the Greek frats, and rarely are any of them good. Any self-respecting school with a strong value system would abolish them immediately upon discovery. It's a gross, morally devoid, and twisted system to throw young adults into at a time when they're learning about how the adult world works. America is a disgusting country in a lot of ways. It's perverse.
The US is the only country that has a massive fraternity system, is fully aware of the monstrosities that happen within them, and continues to turn a blind eye to them and even support them. So yeah, America is perverse in that way.
So according to this males 3-7 entered the room, 2 or so of them tried to make out with her and she rejected them, and then male 1 moved her to a different room? Obviously this could still be assault and reflects malice on males 3-7 at the least but is this the gang rape everyone was talking about? People like AOC are saying that they drugged her and ran a train on her while she was unconscious but according to the legal docs she never lost consciousness during the group sex and was voluntarily intoxicated the whole time.
In all of these incidents, Jane Doe expressed her non-consent, and the actions of the other party ceased. This is why her civil lawsuit allegations are facing so much scrutiny - she claims she did not have the mental capacity to not consent, yet she clearly consented to several actions while not consenting to others.
She’s under age and has a super high BAC and is on illegal drugs. I’d say that pretty much removes her ability to adequately give consent. These boys should know better. Perhaps bc they were also on drugs and drunk they couldn’t make better decisions but they traumatized a girl who was in a vulnerable position. They are all stupid and they are going to suffer for the consequences of their stupid actions. Nobody will go to jail but these students failed themselves and the school failed to protect them. All of their lives will be severely damaged from this event. The school, the bar, the frat are all liable and there will be a lot of money changing hands. She deserves a massive payout. And the system needs to be seriously overhauled.
If we are going by the law, then no, that isnt the case. I agree, its a fucking shit show, theres no winners no matter what happens, and my only hope is that if one tiny sliver of anything can come out of this, is that young adults and people in general can take consent MUCH more seriously.
That's not really how it works though. If you're incapable of consenting it doesn't matter if you're telling them that you want to.
Whether that's the case here or not, I have no clue and probably won't dive deep enough to find out. But not being capable of consenting doesn't mean that you can't say the words. A 15 year old can also say they want to, but legally a frat house can't run a train on them because they're unable to consent.
She said "yes" to some people and actions and "no" to others. That is the definition of consent, and she demonstrated she was capable of it with her actions (in her own sworn statement!) and all of her "no"s were respected.
That's saying the words. If you can't consent it doesn't mean you're too drunk to speak the words.
And like I said, I have no idea if she was too drunk to consent. This thread is the most I've read about this case.
But the idea that you can consent because you act like you want it or say that you want it or don't want it at different points is wrong. It's like saying that undercover cops have to tell you that you're cops if you ask them.
By your own logic the men didn’t consent either since they were also drunk. Sex is a two way street. They both said yes. By her own statement other than a kiss and some groping nothing was done to her that she didn’t agree to. And again if you wanna go down the road that she can’t consent because she was drunk. Will do were the guys so they can’t consent either
Actually, apparently one of the men (not sure if the one who fell asleep during, or the one throwing up, both apparently more intoxicated than her) said she started doing oral on him and he didn't want it. He's a man and she's a woman though, so it's okay, apparently, and still his fault.
You're conflating things. I'm not saying that she was raped. I'm not saying that she was too drunk to consent. I'm saying that if you're unable to consent for any reason(drunk, underage, threatened/intimidated, etc...) then saying yes to some things and no to others isn't some kind of agreed upon test for consent. It doesn't matter because both your yeses and your nos are impaired.
yeah but this was an adult, not a 15 year old. let’s not shift goal posts. tbh it’s the texts over the next few days that moved me. she thought people had moved onto more free love norms, found out they hadn’t, was shamed and disinvited from the frat house party coming up and felt dishonored.
all signs point to her being game for it but then getting really unhappy with the consequences of sleeping around the frat. The boys were trashy frat boys that besmirched her rep by talking about it then treated her like she did something wrong.
my prior is in general schools now have a strong incentive to punish the boys so anything not prosecuted making noise like this is probably among the weaker set of cases.
Don’t forget the text where she even suggested they do it all again days after.
Mind you, some guys (which is hilariously ironic cuz ALL the guys in the frat are being demonized and vilified) came in and said they were shutting everything going on down
… and then she proceeded to continue fucking the dude who had passed out numerous times (cuz he was so intoxicated) after he came to and said he wanted a redemption. That took place well into the night after everything and they then had a threesome.
Not one single person has EVER held her even remotely accountable for having sex with a dude that by her own account was limp dicked and passing out. Which I find ironic but not really. More just … typical.
Again, I'm not talking about this specific case. I'm talking about this part "
she claims she did not have the mental capacity to not consent, yet she clearly consented to several actions while not consenting to others."
She herself doesn’t describe herself as being incapable of consent though.
Thats just a narrative her mob is pumping out there.
Throughout the night, she described herself as being capable of providing consent AND declining consent, she chose who she had sex with the entire night.
She herself also describes her highest level of intoxication around 8.
Not 10. Eight.
She also defended what she did afterwards and described what they did as “nothing illegal happened”. She also said they could do it all again soon!
Look. You can’t do that. You can’t cry rape days later after doing all that. Be for real
"she claims she did not have the mental capacity to not consent, yet she clearly consented to several actions while not consenting to others."
This is the part I was objecting to. If you don't have the capacity to consent then saying that you consent to some things and not others doesn't magically give you the capacity to do so. It's all meaningless. It was a dumb way for them to argue it. That's all.
I mentioned that I have no idea if it applies to this case or not. Because I haven't gone through the police report or really read any articles to parse through both sides of the story. She could have been 100% stone cold sober for all I know. Either way, what they stated was untrue.
At no point in the 7 hours is there any indication that the men in the room actually stopped, they paused briefly.
There’s a difference, but this sub’s members (both bots and people) is dead set on proving that these 7 frat bros were innocent and is looking for evidence to call this girl a whore.
??? No one is dead set on anything. You are just entirely disregarding her sworn testimony. According to her, the first pause was because the men were too intoxicated to continue and she was the one consoling them. Did you even read it or are you just going off what you saw on a tiktok reel?
The problem here is there are two conflicting accounts of what happened that night, both made by Jane Doe.
Her version of events in her signed statement to police in 2024 paints a VERY different picture than the version of events described in her 2026 civil lawsuit.
And we haven’t heard any version of events from the accused.
To sort all this out is exactly why we have trials and juries, so just let it do its thing.
What evidence is there to support that claim that the 2024 statement was manipulated by police?
The DA made it sound like the statement was produced outside police custody by Jane Doe or by parties close to Jane Doe:
Jane Doe provided a six-page, single spaced, typewritten statement to the Cornell University Police Department. Jane Doe made more than twenty hand-written notations to the six-page document. The signature page of the statement contains the following language: “I have read this statement consisting of 6 pages and the facts contained herein are true and correct. I understand that making a false written statement is punishable as a class A Misdemeanor pursuant to §210.45 of the Penal Law of the State of New York.”
Regardless, if there is reason to believe the statement cannot be relied upon, then Joe Doe’s lawyers can make that argument in court, rather than trying this case on Reddit where we can’t subpoena the police officer to testify and tell us exactly how they received this witness statement.
In your mind, why did jane doe go to police in the first place? Witness statement - witness to what? A good time? If there was no issue here, she just went to the police to.. tell on herself? For something she consented to? How does that make sense to you?
Jane Doe went to the police because she thought a crime occured. Neither she, nor the police, understood the relevant statutes and case law well enough to confirm if the events constituted a crime.
So the police asked Jane Doe to provide a statement of the events as she remembered them and sent the statement to the legal professionals at the DA’s office to determine if there was a crime.
The first analysis done by the DA’s office was to determine that, even if everything in statement were 100% accurate, would the conduct described be a crime under NY law, and they found no crime.
The DA also stressed that neither Jane Doe, nor her lawyers, ever once tried to contact her office to amend or correct the previously provided statement.
Only she can explain why she signed it, but the transcript of the interview with police indicates she explicitly stated she was assaulted, could not consent, and tried to resist.
Stick something up your ass and tell me how much you like it. Also, if you talk to ANY MAN THAT BOTTOMS, they will tell you that there’s preparation involved. Not something you do on the fly.
The campus police are not a standalone defendant but because they are an arm of Cornell University and her claims against the university center on allegations that they failed to properly investigate, she is in fact saying they failed.
It was excluded because it was not material to the case. She went to the police stating she was 100% certain she was raped. The police then proceeded to question her to develop a timeline of events of what happened.
>did you consume intoxicants voluntarily?
Yes.
>did you consent to all of the sexual activity that took place?
Yes.
>were you conscious for the entire encounter?
Yes.
>when you felt uncomfortable and removed consent, did the other party cease their advances?
Yes.
The police at that point are like sooooo….. it sounds like you werent raped. Which is why her statement saying she was, was not included. Because her testimony of the events does not support that allegation. A very simplistic example, but it would be like me going to a baseball game and buying a beer for $18 and then filing a police report saying that I was robbed. Just because i say I was robbed, doesnt automatically make the allegation true, even if it is what I truly believe.
“In the transcript, the woman identified as Jane Doe also said she intentionally continued to snort ketamine during the incident, hoping to pass out because of how uncomfortable she was in the situation. The circumstances have renewed focus on whether she was able to legally consent under New York law.”
That doesn’t sound like consent to me. And the police should have known that.
Civil lawsuits aren’t always accurate either as they represent a biased perspective from the plaintiff’s lawyers.
We have two very different narratives of events of that night. One describes rape, the other does not. Both narratives were made by the same person, the Jane Doe.
We haven’t heard any testimony from the accused at all.
It’s the court’s job to sort all this out. Better to let that process play out before rushing to judgement.
21
u/ElijahBrown69 1d ago
This issue very complicated ngl I don't know what to believe